"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of
indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are
subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments."[

Well since the sceptics are out in force, I thought I would post a far more valuable and pertinent guide for clear minded thinking, as opposed to
socially brainwashed ideological ranting.

First off I’d like to raise the concept of “Pessimism Syndrome”

People should be aware that media doesn’t portray truth, what it portrays is a representation of truth using a combination of images and words to
create a concept of reality. Bad news sells, this is very important to realize. Headline news tends to be oppressive, negative and dramatic. People
being stabbed, shot, murder, defrauded and so in is “selling news”, so what you get from media is a very one sided and skewed view of the
world.

Imagine every country on earth in a 24 hour day period, and then watch your 30 minute evening news segments. What you will realize is that the news is
actually only a tiny fraction of a percent of what actually happened in the world on any given day.

What you are seeing is a “selected” view of what is “most important in the world”. Who decides this importance is the very first question any
critical mind should ask. There may well have been 95% good positive things happening in the world and only a tiny % of “stabbings and rapes”
however what you are presented as a “whole news entity” is actually a select view of how the world is.

“In 1991 the [Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, DC] did an exhaustive analysis of network news and New York Times stories on
the rapidly recovering U.S. economy. An astounding 96 percent of stories about the general economy were negative in tone; pessimism occupied 87
percent of the stories on real estate, 88 percent of the features on the auto industry, and a perfect 100 percent of stories on manufacturing. [Now]
the intervening years have produced one of the longest economic expansions of the postwar era, [it] looks positively foolish.”

The second question you should ask is why? Why do media select constantly the negative angle? The answer to that question is simple. There is a fear
and negativity agenda in modern media.
This isn’t wrong but any critical person must be aware of its activity. The media plays a role in highlighting social problems and negative events,
that’s part of media responsibility and what you receive as news is directly tied to this motive.

Recent studies have proven that even in times when crime is decreasing, the public perception of crime increases. This ties in directly to media
acceptance and passive viewing. Because people do not think critically and understand that news is not reality but a tool or presentation, even in
positive times they see the negative news and are inclined to believe this means the world is more negative than it actually is.

Another key issue is media ideology. Each media station and paper operates under an idelogy. If you compare the representation of political and
sociological “news” across the various forms of media and actually remove the factual data, you will find that the facts are actually the same in
all cases. However each presentation has a different slant, this comes from all the filler and semantic text which is added.

In the Times a male might crash his car and be killed, in The Sun a young playboy might wrap his red sports model Bentley around a lamp post in a
quiet housing estate. The second version has the same facts however it is “colored” to present them in a very different way. By using the
semantics of the coloring words we have a tabloid view that this was some reckless joyride by a rich kid which ended in tragedy. It is not truth, but
a perception of truth portrayed by someone else.

“In previous centuries, the Church was the great controller, dictating morality, stifling free expression and posing as conservator of all great
art and music. Today we have television dictating fashions, thoughts, techniques but doing it so palatably that no one notices. Instead of "sins" to
keep people in line, we have fear of being judged unacceptable by our peers (by not wearing the right running shoes, not drinking the right kind of
beer or wearing the wrong kind of deodorant), and fear of imposed insecurity concerning our own identities. Borrowing the Christian sole salvation
concept, television tells people that only through exposure to TV can the sins of alienation and ostracism be absolved.”

Not only does this come with immediate dangers but by social handling and our tendancy to enjoy the dramatic, these media presentations are soon told
and retold via social inter communication with more and more “drama and color”. The Sun might “imply via coloration” that a playboy ethic was
there, we as readers will then retell the story based on our own feelings and soon the truth becomes lost in the illusion of truth. “You here about
that spoilt joyrider?”....”yes, he was probably drunk” by a process of Chinese whispers what started as a slant becomes a much distorted image
of what was originally there.

“Television has become the resident priest of Trash, catering almost entirely for thrill-seekers with short-attention spans. Adverts are quick
and shocking, programs are simplistic and moronic. Although more educated content exists it is unpopular. Thankfully the government takes a strong
hand in monitoring domestic channels for content and worth, otherwise I suspect local TV would be almost entirely lost to stupidity & contentless
entertainment.”

Another key issue is content. While we all see these soap operas, it’s difficult to separate where reality and TV actually diverge in TV in the
modern age. We spend our lives watching actors “portray” a reality of existence out on the screens week in week out. From a very young age this
“image of what’s real” becomes very grounded, and by the same sense anything which is outside that sphere of reality becomes alienated from
reality itself.

There is a very proven link between reality and the impact of TV reality. Issues that appear in “soaps” tends to become very large issue in the
times, whether its racism, sexism, violence, whatever. We see it, we talk about it, we correlate it with what we see in news segments and the process
of how we form reality is contaminated by a false sense of what reality is. Again, the greatest danger is that anything existing outside this bubble
of truth becomes isolated and obscured, we box it away as “unreality” in the same sense we negate the concept of all the positive aspects of what
happens in the world daily, because our news reality only shows us the negatives and the entertaining aspects of life.

“One of the reasons I highlight the effect on mass media on democracy is that the media is a big influence on most of us, frequently greater
than both peer pressure and parental controls. How many parents sit their children in front of the TV in their most formative years just to keep them
from being a 'nuisance'? It thoroughly informs all of us with specific cultural mores that are stoic, commercialist, short-term, thrill-seeking,
unintelligent and moronic.”

"One view, that of Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt school, is that the popular media exist to dull people's minds and get them to accept the
work and consumption patterns that are needed to sustain capitalism"

All of this of course ties intently into democracy itself:

“If the masses are stupid, democracy doesn't work. The government has to rule by stealth, tricking the people through things that merely sound
good but in intelligent society promoting and doing things that are good, or democracy shoots itself in its foot and causes the downfall of the nation
into an anarchic mess. Shallow policies do not make for good government, but, most stupid people vote on shallow issues. The solution is to trick the
stupid people into voting for you or to educate them. A good-intentioned deception is nearly always much easier and will never be dispensed with, the
only alternative is to restrict voting for uneducated people. This is the dilemma of modern Western democracy!”

This is an issue which has long been mooted as a major issue in modern media driven democracy.

“Politicians come to rely on appearances, slogans and image rather than substance and content. This is because the masses do not have the
ability to understand the content, statistics, the sociology of required changes: they only understand the surface patterns, the veneer. You end up
with people being concerned with outrage and shock more than issues. Naom Chomsky is an intelligent critic of the way modern democracy works. This
employing of "dumbed down" politics, which is really nothing more than a soap opera and just as shallow, is summarized by Chomsky into what was
known as the "Mohawk Valley Formula" [Chomsky 1991]: The use of hollow slogans and shallow campaigns for the stupid masses. Because while parties
still explore issues and produce in-depth papers and analysis, it's only the intelligent minority that understand them. As a result of stupidity and
trash culture, democracy is threatened because the masses votes are not hinged on pertinent factors but on frivolous ones.”

We can see this emphatically in the modern age through voter apathy. The fact is a very small % of people actually know the depth and details of who
they vote for. The basis for the vote is based on the campaign slogans, carefully placed one liners, and key “alarmist” issues which can swing a
vote one way or the other. A tiny fraction actually read the whole policy and even fewer understand it.
It comes down to whoever wins the media highlighted squabble and delivers the most entertaining performance with the best slogans wins. This is the
era of spin politics of course where the true issues have been subverted by the need to appeal to an apathetic public.

We know from TV and News studies that drama, entertainment, shock and fear are what sell to the public, and therefore the campaigns and spins are all
designed to tap into this new age consciousness which grips the voting public. They won’t read any in depth policies because nobody cares, if they
dramatize a few key issues with nice slogans and argue over it, people latch onto the thrill aspect and are inclined to vote. In US politics for
example you will see the “patriotism” card played often in these campaigns and also the “American dream” construct which people relate to.

While this began as a media driven trend, in the modern age it’s become something of a political play thing. Governments no longer need the support
of the “people” they just need to entertain and enchant a larger amount of a small % than the other man. Nobody wants to get political because
nobody really cares; it’s easier to spin your way into power than to bother seriously persuading the public.

“The low turnout of voters affects the authority of governments who are keenly sensitive to the erosion of their legitimacy. [...] In 1997, New
Labour was backed by only 31 per cent of those qualified to vote, voter turnout at this election was the lowest since 1945. [...] The 1999 UK
elections to the European Parliament brought a turnout of 23 per cent - and in one Sunderland polling station, only 15 people turned up out of the
1000 entitled to vote. In the 2001 General Election, apathy emerged as the dominant issues under debate - and the turnout was an all-time low of 59
per cent.”

“Large multinational companies are able to outmanouvre and ignore local governments, which sometimes places them above-the-law. Mass stupidity
and voter apathy means that the people normally vote (if they vote at all) on short-sighted, shallow and unimportant issues, which reduces the ability
of government to make required sacrifices to overcome long-term problems. If the people vote on good-sounding but shallow policies, only good-sounding
but shallow (short-term) parties will be elected. This is potentially disastrous and represents the biggest threat to democracy.”

Basically the very premise of media and how we relate to it has eroded democracy on an intelligent level and allowed society to be manipulated and
controlled with no more than SoundBits, spin and the illusions of credibility.

“The lack of intelligence in the content of poor quality media has an effect on the quality of democracy; leaders are forced to circumvent the
wills of the masses simply because the masses are misinformed and have been prompted to care about shallow issues by the press and TV.”

Great thread silver6ix! I agree with everything you've thoughtfully presented. However, it isn't really an Aliens/UFO's thread, though I understand
how you may be trying to relate it... the information pertains to most things in our world.

Great thread! (unfortunately, I think wrong forum, probably belongs in education/media) I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially the
parts about how politicians have to resort to slogans and shock and stuff like that because most people are too stupid and/or lazy to find out what's
happening in the world. In my opinion, democracy is 'the rule by the stupid majority', and it is why I don't think democracy can work, at least on
a large scale. It is possible to have an intelligent small group behave democratically, but educating a large group enough that they can participate
effectively in a democracy... well, it's very difficult, if not impossible, because it hasn't been done yet.

Yes to most of this, but the thing is, it's almost trivial: obvious facts that are, in their own way, spun into an unspoken agenda.

Everybody knows, for example, that newspaper groups have a specific political slant; whether people are influenced by that or choose those sources on
the basis of pre-existing political leanings is an open question, though I'd suggest the latter. Everybody knows the link between government and big
business, and everyone abhors it when the links are unconvered.

Everybody knows that politics has become increasingly shallow and driven by trivial issues, and that minor media concerns can be used by politicians
to distract attention from more important events. People are apathethic for a number of reasons, though, and I'd suggest one is that democracy is
inherently limited by the political party system. The lask UK election, many people didn't turn out because they were increasingly disillusioned by
New Labour but didn't want to vote for the single other party that could replace them, or for the third party, which was effectively a vote for one
of the two mains. That was certainly my reason for abstaining.

Everybody knows the news we see is filtered and sieved. You can, of course, get your news from various sources, including online ones, and an
intelligent person sieves and filters on their own.

And that's the rub, with media manipulation issues. Most of the ideas (and Chomsky, though a great writer, is also very successful because of this)
are very obvious, very appealing, and have the virtue of making you feel more intelligent than everyone else. What they effectively say is: "People
are having the wool pulled over their eyes - but not you, my clever friend!". Which I think is dangerous, albeit appealing on first encounter.

I mean, really -

There is a very proven link between reality and the impact of TV reality. Issues that appear in “soaps” tends to become very large issue in the
times, whether its racism, sexism, violence, whatever. We see it, we talk about it, we correlate it with what we see in news segments and the process
of how we form reality is contaminated by a false sense of what reality is.

How patronising is this? It's effectively saying "other people are dumb, but I see through it". Speak for yourself, silver. Everyone sees
through it. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Unfortunately people dont as a rule. Most people dont think actively on things like that. People turn on the TV, watch it and dont consider anything.

Also I believe that knowledge isnt as widespread as you suggest. While educated people may well know in some cases, I can assure you its not the rule
of thumb.

As for patronising, unfortunately truth is truth. Theres a very heavy weight of theory behind all of the contests, beyond that it correlates with the
polls, statistics and facts of life. Im afraid while it may seem patronising, its simply something which exists in the modern world.

Im pretty sure if given to active instead of passive thought most people could, eventually, free themselves of the habitual semantics. That in itself
wouldnt simple. You do not just wash away a lifetime of constructs. You would need to actively deconstruct the concepts into a form where they no
longer had certain meanings. Possible yes, but it would mean you couldnt just trot home from work, grab a beer and plonk in front of the TV and switch
off.

Anyway the bottom line is that I disagree, most people are not acutely aware of the process and dont actively think their way through. In general as a
rule, people who turn on the TV and watch the news are not critically thinking, they are just watching the stories and accepting reality.

As for why im aware? Education, I studied critical theory and media theory among other things in Uni. Once you develop the habit of having to critique
and pull apart everything for study, it sticks with you.

Originally posted by silver6ix
Also I believe that knowledge isnt as widespread as you suggest. While educated people may well know in some cases, I can assure you its not the rule
of thumb.

As for patronising, unfortunately truth is truth. Theres a very heavy weight of theory behind all of the contests, beyond that it correlates with the
polls, statistics and facts of life. Im afraid while it may seem patronising, its simply something which exists in the modern world.

There's a weight of theory, but is there a weight of evidence? I acknowledge Chomsky's filters, but I think they can only go so far. Undoubtably, a
political spin can be put on the news, and advertisers can exert pressure, and so on. There's no real argument to be made there.

But, first off, Manufacturing Consent is a reasonably old text: specifically, it pre-dates the internet, which is far harder to filter than
conventional news outlets. Ignore a major news story, you'll get caught out. News is now far more grass-roots.

Secondly, what evidence is there that these filters are enormously effective to the extent I think you're implying? Can you think of a single
post-90s news story that the media have ignored, rather than simply desperately spun? I can understand a newspaper slanting their coverage in a
political sense; there's no doubt they do. But that's a trivial truth, really, and most people are aware of it. I grew up reading the Daily Mail,
and am as liberal as you can get. I'd suggest most DM readers choose the paper because it reflects their worldview, rather than receiving their
worldview through 'indoctrination' by the paper. (I would suggest the same is often true of reading Chomsky).

Thirdly, what is and isn't being filtered? An argument that the media can suppress entire subjects quickly runs into question-begging; it is
unfalsifiable. You could say "the media have suppressed fairies and unicorns", and, by definition, there's no proof for or argument against the
idea. Also, I'm curious how you think, say, the Iraq war fits into this framework. How do you think the dodgy dossier, cross-party support, the
proliferation of business interests and media manipulation fits in with the millions and millions of people who marched against a foregone
conclusion?

And I'm interested in how you're going to tie this into aliens/UFOs. I'd be intrigued to see what your take on that is.

Of course theres a weight of evidence. In any University library you will find wall after wall of critical work on these issues, its a huge subject
covered in depth for a long time. Its not a fictional science here, it has been around for a long time and media studies is still a relatively young
field however more and move evidence stacks up over time.

As for suppressing ideas, its a very subtle thing. We can look at the whole "generation of fear" concept which is basically what media does by
default as "fear journalism" dominates all mainstream media.

Media instills a fear and the soltion can then be provided. Look at the patriot act for a classic example, it was a policy which would never have been
brought in under normal circumstance however after months and months of "terrorist" media saturation, the policies could be easily brought in.

Microchiping humans with GPS. Once the realm of science fiction soon to be the realm of science fact. its motivating factor? Fear. Media coverage of
paedophiles is at an all time high, child abduction is at an all time high, people live with the constant fear of their kids becoming victims, the
solution, chip the babies with gps chips so if anything happens you can find the kids quickly.

So what 30 years ago was called fantasy, never going to happen, impossible, world would never stand for it, is now a matter of when not if, soon
enough you will have more and more kids chipped at birth with "protective" systems to stave off a media driven fear of abduction.

Statistically the fear does NOT match its public perception, its by no means an every day reality for every person, and yet its been drummed up to a
major social panic level by media coverage.

In fact almost every major drastic policy and action (which were once the realm of conspiracy tin hat theories 30-50 years ago) is coming into play
right now under your very nose, because of FEAR.

Uk Id cards, never going to happen, people dont want them, cant do it. That was the position 15 years ago.

Now what? 15 years of media saturation on "illegal immigrants" and social fears regarding immigrancy and illegal aliens. Whats come in now?

Thats right, national ID cards biometric IDs for immigrants. Next step? Positive publicity, saturation of the success, ohh look ID cards work and in
5-10 years everyone carries biometric ids.

We arent talking some fictional debate here, we are talking established ongoing and incredible facts, laws and actions ARE being brought into society
directly ontop of FEAR.

Governments owning the banks? Couldnt happen right? Sure it cant, market crash, media frenzy, global panic, media frenzy some more and bobs your
uncle, the governments now become major owners of the banks.

I could list an endless list of these events which have been going on for years and are going on right as we speak and in most cases I could point
back 30 years to a consipiracy theory which predicted these things and which was tagged "fiction, fantasy, never going to happen".

As I said, its a truth, its there, right before everyone eyes happening day in day out right infront of you, and how many people actually notice the
pattern? Answer is very very few.

Yes, I know about the culture of fear, and all that: I've read lots of Frank Furedi's stuff too. I think it's undeniable that the conventional
media plays on our fears, although I think that's generally because it sells copy - and then the government or opposition seizes on that as best it
can. It's a whole other argument to claim that powerful people deliberately manipulate the media to create a climate for a particular policy.

It's important to keep a focus on this type of discussion. Your thread refers to "socially indoctrinated beliefs" through the mainstream media. As
I requested, can you give me your analysis of the Iraq war with reference to that?

Or, if that seems unfair, you mentioned ID cards yourself. My theory would be that the government has invested a lot of money in this stupid idea -
already signed contracts, I believe - and so the train is rolling. They can't back off now without massive loss of face and finance, so they're
soldiering on.

Your theory:

Uk Id cards, never going to happen, people dont want them, cant do it. That was the position 15 years ago.

Now what? 15 years of media saturation on "illegal immigrants" and social fears regarding immigrancy and illegal aliens. Whats come in now?

Thats right, national ID cards biometric IDs for immigrants. Next step? Positive publicity, saturation of the success, ohh look ID cards work and in
5-10 years everyone carries biometric ids.

A question for you. If that's the reason - if media manipulation is behind this - then can you explain the reports in every media outlet about
the losses of public data? Not just once, but over and over again? Each one referencing the proposed ID card scheme?

Here is what I think: good story, plays on public fears, sells copies. And then I see the government and opposition scrambling in a haphazard manner
to salvage or exploit the issue.

The media arent neccesarily implicit in anything. Selling fear is the nature of media. The issue is the impact and the potential for manipulation.

Why do other stories get played, because to control the entire media in a direct fashion would mean revealing an agenda to all journalists and the
loop would be too big to contain.

However the agenda can and is directed via HQ content meetings, at which point the strategy for the media is outlined, certain types of story are
given priority, the agenada of what "constitutes" headline news or front page news, the type of stories they should be leading with, all under the
banner of "selling news".

Journalists at root level most likely are just doing their jobs and following the agreed prioritisation and story typing set by these corporate
meetings. The question is how compromised is the corporate level of media and the answer is, completely.

You cant just say to a journalist they cant publish public interest stories on data loss as a rule because it would be suspect, journalists would
become aware of the agenda.

In some cases these types of stories might be "prioritised".

An example of this has been the promoting and now undermining of the Labour party. In the build up to Labor coming into power, the mainstream media
headlined daily with "charm and hope" angles on Tony Blair and th whole "new labor new hope" thing. If you consider the end of Blairism and later
coverage of Labour, its now headling with some very sour images.

Yes, of course in amongst it are a minority of sub headlines which arent negative, but the corporate agenda seems to be that "anti labour is our
selling point" and thats headline news. Was this passive or active, theres the question but in the end its irrelevant the fact it is a real
phenomenon either way.

Who set "paedophilia" as a "key event" in the news agenda for each news outlet? Corporate HQ did. News agendas are discussed, identified and
agreed upon, news at a local of station level is operated on clearly defined "agendas and guidelines" which come from corporate level strategy
meetings.

The editor at any given time will have a very precise list on what is "priority news" what is "headline news" and the stories and angles are all
gathered and published to that agreed set of rules.

Once again, its coming from corporate.

You have to also remeber these people arent stupid, they dont want to SHOW the agenda, which is why huge media enterprises like News Corp, operate
more than one style of media, they can balance out the presentation of agenda across the spectrum ensuring that the balance of ideology remains
dominant to an obejective.

Also you have to consider juxtaposition and placing. HOW media ins placed is a key factor, credibility or importance is given or taken from a piece
depending how it is frame.

If you frame George Bush making a statement within two "fantasy or comedy" type pieces, you lessen the credibility and effect of the piece in the
centre, its called priming.

Likewise if your frame an agenda piece between two "social fear pieces", you magnify the effect and imapact of the segment.

You make it sound like some guesswork event, when in fact the placing, priming, positioning and balancing of news agenda and ideology is a very
complex system formed from within the very structure of news entities, all coming ultimately down to corporate level meetings which "set agenda" for
the respective publications for that week or month, or period.

Whenever there is any key event, there will be a major "agenda meeting" where corporate briefs the news teams and editors on what the agenda and
perspective should be, this is all very normal stuff within media.

However whats important is that its impact is very powerful indeed. the impact iself is fully visible in marketing theory and advertising theory, it
is an established fact that marketing and advertising science WORKS, and the very same principles apply to media which in its own right represents a
form of advertising or marketing of news agendas.

These corporations SELL news, they sell, the public buys and they market aggressively, predicting and manipulating fears to maximise impact and
success.

Believe me, its a very powerful mechanism with very grounded and established science behind it. Individual moments arent whats important the overall
"sense" which come from the combined effects of mass media are what drives everything.

Silver - in all honesty, I'm struggling with this. I may be wrong, but it feels to me like you've very recently discovered these writers and are now
throwing your course notes out in a fit of enthusiasm.

I'll ask you - once again - to concentrate on a concrete, real-world example, just so I'm clear you're thinking for yourself rather than just
repeating the vaguely connected views of superficially impressive academics I've already read.

The national ID card scheme. You imply there's been a concerted media campaign to create an environment where the population accepts them. You
specifically mentioned coverage of immigration as part of this. And yet different media outlets cover immigration in different ways, while there has
been a series of widely-covered errors by the government that have led every newspaper and media outlet I've seen to attack the scheme as unworkable.
Could you provide a working scenario for what was happening over the years in the various agenda meetings, and how you think this constitutes
effective "media manipulation"?

Or tell me how you think this is connected to UFOs/ETs?

Or anything but rephrase the opinions of people like Chomsky and Furedi, who, I suspect, would not agree with you anyway.

Silver - in all honesty, I'm struggling with this. I may be wrong, but it feels to me like you've very recently discovered these writers and are now
throwing your course notes out in a fit of enthusiasm.

Actuallly I studied the subject for five years, and have a degree in the subject.

Have you ever studied media and critical theory?

Im assuming not since there are any number of discourses or theories you could have referenced. Your position seems to be one of denial which is
completely without foundation or substance when talking about critical theory.

You cannot just dismiss critical theory because "you dont believe it" im afraid thats simply not how it works unless you are suggesting thousands
and thousands of volumes and critical studies, theories and evaluations are somehow less valuable than your opinion.

The difference here is that im expressing an established critical position with a weight of study, evaluation and thesis behind it.

The bottom line before you go questioning someones knowledge of a subject you would do well to know the subject first, if you did you wouldnt be
pointing out basics when established theory has evolved far beyond the entry point of your questions.

If you were genuinely presenting a critical case here you might be critically evaluating the concepts of hypertexts, ideological superstructures,
deconstruction, modernism and post moderinism in an attempt to evaluate and counter established theories and positions.

Ohh and as for how it relates to UFOs, well thats quite basic really, but it requires the understanding of counter and sub culture as a componant of
the cultural structure and the dominance of mainstream ideology. From that position you would clearly understand that it applies to ALL non mainstream
ideas and concept as well as their counter positions.

Silver - I don't think my qualifications are relevant, as I don't believe in appeals to authority. I have no respect for it, not least when someone
presents a bibliography and says "trust my education" in place of having an argument.

I repeat - and it must surely be a simple request - explain the ID card issue to me. You brought it up as an example, after all, so presumably you
must have some ideas. Explain who has laid the groundwork for the acceptance of ID cards over the years, and why, and how. Then explain how the
coverage of the recent losses of data fits into that. And how the whole can be described as an effective 'social indoctrination' of the passive
population, planned over a period of years.

I'm interested in hearing your theory. If you know a single critical theorist who agrees with your theory, then please feel free to link to them too.
Until then, I'd just like you to justify your own example with something other than a CV.

I have a better idea, its called self education. First of all if you dont know about the ID card issue, I have to wonder how given the fact its been a
heatspot issue for some considerable time.

The point is people need to learn to think for themselves, read for themselves, read between lines and check their facts for themselves. Given that
fairly obvious point, what does me "telling you conclusively" what the truth of any single issue do except help you further to remain completely
unwilling to open your eyes, use your brain and self investigate your own reality.

Theirin lies the crux of the issue. Im not here to tell you truth, then again neither is the media, neither is your best friend, neither are NASA,
neither is George Bush because if you live you entire life reliant on someone else telling you whats real, you will never live in any kind of
reality.

I raised issues which can be very easily researched, theoretically, statistically, i listed more than enough sources of very powerful work and
understanding on the subject, and I raised a series of very common knowledge issues.

And I will telly ou something else, walk out your door, goto your local University and ASK someone who teaches this stuff about these issues ive
mentioned and you will find something, that its not some unknown, unreal, isolated issue that hasnt been considered, they will all know and they will
all be able to point to a wealth of resources and textual studies on the phenomenon.

Hoepfully what they wont do is waste their time trying to convince you of anything because that is your responsibility, not theirs or mine. You can
lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink, so the bottom line is that those who wish to remain in hiding from staple truths, will do so.

You have internet, you have libraries, if you dont know the facts, then its because you dont want to know. Are there books, credited academic books
used in the curriculum of theory on ALL of these issues, yes there are, a great deal of them.

Once again your original post claimed "everyone knows" I wouldnt have to go back to the point, that for a world where "everyone knows" you seem to
be running very blind on issues which have been in debate, dealt with in theory and are being taught right at this moment in time. So I guess as I
said "everybody" clearly does not know, and thats because not everyone makes any effort to know.

Once again we return to the crux of the issue. You are either active or passive, that choice is yours and yours alone to make, im not going to spoon
feedyou something because thats the worst habit any human being could ever have in this day and age.

Again, its not MY theory, its critical theory spanning thousands of texts and thousands of theorist, critics, philosphers, political science masters,
social science masters and on and on. All Im doing is pointing a fingre and saying.....take a look......its something people really should consider in
life.

I see. So your point is simply "I am educated enough to know better; if you were as educated as me you would agree with me". How ironic.

Look - you were happy enough to bring up ID cards as an example of media coverage as over-arching social indoctrination. Now, when asked to explain
how the coverage of data loss fits into that, you rely on appeals to authority. "Oh, you'll have to read it for yourself..."

It's sadly transparent. One last try - if you can't explain your own example, then can you point to a single critical theorist that would frame
media coverage of ID cards in the way you're describing?

If you can't, or refuse to on some grounds, I invite others to make of your credibility what they will. All this 'educate yourself' bluster can't
hide the fact that you appear to have read a few authors, become enamoured with them, distorted their theories, and think throwing a few technical
terms around will impress people. It doesn't impress me.

GO ahead, im inviting everyone, including you to be bothered to think for yourselves, so please do.

I neither want nor need credibility, credibility is just another device of control. As for"im educated I know better than you."....well isnt that
obvious?

If you spend years studying a subject you would obviously know it better than someone. Do you think a joiner knows more about maths than a maths
master? Obviously not, thats the whole point.

Again, I have provided more than enough for any willing person to self motivate themselves and learn the basics, im certainly not going to cram years
of theory into a post for you, one because im not your teacher and two because getting "spoon fed" information is whats wrong with the world and im
not about to repeat the mistake.

If you want to know, they open your mind and look for it. Theres no great secret there.

Which is exactly what I expected. You thought your course notes were impressive and so threw them out there, but, when questioned, you were unable to
find an answer so retreated to "Erm... I've got a degree so trust me that the answer's there". Did they teach you what an 'appeal to authority'
was?

As I stated, my qualifications are absolutely irrelevant. I won't say what they are, because it adds nothing to the argument. It certainly isn't
obvious to me that you know more than me. To me, it looks like you got in over your head and are now trying to blag your way out.

Saying 'the answers are there if you look hard enough' is absurd: you have no idea whether I've looked hard or not. Why not assume that I have and
correct me on what I must have missed? All I asked you to do was explain how one of your own examples fit with your argument. Should be simple,
assuming you've actually thought about it. Or a single critical theorist - out of the thousands, apparently - who would support your overall
argument.

It's ironic, because nobody would accept your approach from a skeptic; you would be the first to condemn it. "Trust me - that object is a fighter
jet. I know, I've studied them." "Which fighter jet?". "Erm ... it's obvious, but I'm not going to tell you. You'll have to study them too".

I'd love to see you tie this into aliens and UFOs. I will be waiting with breathless excitement, and perhaps some popcorn. But I certainly won't be
waiting up.

First of all yes, I know not only that you havent looked but that you know it too. Since I know for a fact you would find it in any half decent
library with a critical theory section and that any 2nd year student of theory could probably tell you, its very easy to know you havent looked.

Which is exactly what I expected. You thought your course notes were impressive and so threw them out there, but, when questioned, you were
unable to find an answer so retreated to "Erm... I've got a degree so trust me that the answer's there". Did they teach you what an 'appeal to
authority' was?

We shouldnt confuse your personal lack of knowledge with a global phenomenon here. Im afraid it YOU who doesnt know, is unable to understand and
unwilling to look.

Critical theory is an exceptionally complex subject with very long theoretical positions and counters and if you image for a second ill answer every
stupid question you make with a forty page essay, I think you believe in free tuition a little too much.

As I said, the information is there, if you choose not to read and learn, thats your choice. Im not going to pretent its anything other than that.

It's ironic, because nobody would accept your approach from a skeptic; you would be the first to condemn it. "Trust me - that object is a
fighter jet. I know, I've studied them." "Which fighter jet?". "Erm ... it's obvious, but I'm not going to tell you. You'll have to study them
too".

Well, sure but when someone points you to a veritable avalanche of critical theory books which have everything you need to know, and those are just a
few there are genuinely THOUSANDs on every given aspect of media and theory, maybe even millions....a smart person wouldnt be standing there trying to
argue a point when they dont even know HOW to start.

This isnt you presenting a critical postion, you HAVE no critical position, all of the questions you ask have been dealt with long ago by theorists
who understand the subject, so why should anyone take your point of "I dont know so it doesnt exists" seriously?

Maybe someday you will take that wooly jumper off, and maybe someday you wont, dont assume to speak for everyone though because im sure those who have
an interest will be able to read for themselves.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.